Prediction Model of Dynamic Resilient Modulus of Unsaturated Modified Subgrade under Multi-Factor Combination

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

See attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.doc

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewer,

Thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript entitled “Prediction Model of Dynamic Resilient Modulus of Unsaturated Modified Subgrade Under Multi - factor Combination” (applsci-1884502) by Xiaohan Luan and Leilei Han for publication in Applied Sciences.

We appreciate your hard work of pointing out the important revisions needed in the paper. We have seriously taken these comments into account. What we have changed in response to the reviewers’ comments are given point by point in the following pages attached in this letter.

We hope that all these changes fulfill the requirements to make the manuscript acceptable for publication in Applied Sciences.

Looking forward to hearing from you soon.

Yours Sincerely,

Leilei Han

 

Response to the Reviewer #1’s comments:

We appreciate for your valuable suggestions. We have revised the manuscript according to the reviewer’s comments, and hope that the revised manuscript can be better than the original one. Thanks very much.

 

Q1: The abstract should be rewrite as it present nothing to the reflect the entire content of the manuscript.

Response: Thanks for your professional suggestion. In the revised draft, the summary has been rewritten in combination with your other comments.

Q2: The research objectives are not clear, also the research gap should be highlighted.

Response: Thanks for your valuable comments, the abstract and conclusions have been rewritten to clarify the objective and research gaps of the article. And other parts of the paper have also been sorted out and revised to make the subject of the article more clear.  

Q3: The authors need to clarify what is the advantage of using this prediction model compared to the other published models.

Response: The properties of modified soil are quite different from those of soil in nature. The prediction of the improved soil by the existing research model may have a large error. This model is coupled with the complex environmental factors of unsaturated soil in seasonal frozen region. And it is based on the SWCC of oil shale waste modified subgrade fill and the actual data of resilient modulus after freezing and thawing, which is tailored for this kind of modified soil. Compared with other models, this model has high accuracy in predicting MR of this kind of modified soil. The authors add to this discussion by adding a comparison of previous forecasting models in Section III.

Q4:   Please reword this sentence" Continuing the research of the research group, the mass mixing ratio of oil shale waste residue, fly ash and silty clay is 2:1:2. In general the writing language should be improved as I noted many miswriting.

Response: Sorry for these mistakes, the author has made changes in the manuscript.

Q5:   To enhance the quality of this manuscript the authors should present the results of the conducted testing then they can use this measured data to validate the proposed equation

Response: The following changes have been made in the revised manuscript:

1) Data points and fitting functions were marked in SWCC images (Figure.1).

2) Some data were added in the model verification section (table.3).

Q6: How the authors developed the proposed model without any measurement of matric suction I noted in Figure 1 it presents the prediction of SWCC using Qian Zhai paramters. It is worth to mention that this (Figure 1) is the same as Gould et al., 2012 model. Please clarify and outline the write equations.

Response: I am sorry that I did not express clearly enough in this part. I have made the following reply to your questions, and revised in the manuscript.

• The SWCC in Figure 1 is obtained by the author through the filter paper method experiment. However, since the experimental data of the filter paper method are discrete, this paper adopts the widely used Fredlund model (function (5), reference [10]) for fitting, to find the feature points of SWCC more conveniently. The method Qianzhai proposed in literature [22] is to obtain the eigenvalues of SWCC by calculating Fredlund fitting parameters. These eigenvalues have practical physical meaning, and they are usually found in SWCC using graphical drawing of auxiliary lines. Using the calculation method proposed by Qianzhai is more accurate than the graphical method.
• In order to avoid misunderstanding, the author made a small modification to Figure 1, and marked the fitting equation and measured data points on the original Figure 1. In addition, I adjusted the narrative order before and after Figure 1 and added some necessary narratives to make this part more clear.
• The SWCC tested in this study is only to discuss which eigenvalues should be applied to establish effective stress parameters to better express the contribution of soil element stress to matric suction, rather than to propose a new SWCC prediction model. The authors used the advanced eigenvalue calculation method of predecessors to calculate the eigenvalues of SWCC, and all the methods used are quoted in the paper.

Q7:   How the authors developed model based on one type of soil? It is noted no direct measurement of resilient modulus?

Response: The experimental results [30] cited in the section discussing freeze-thaw reduction coefficient are the previous research of our research group, which was participated by the author himself. All data used in Section 3 to verify the model are also directly measured through experiments. In the revised draft, the author added some charts (Figure 2, Table 3) and analysis to make this part of the exposition more complete.

Q8:   Please define in details what is meant by a new effective stress parameter and the coefficient function

Response: Detailed definitions have been added for all model parameters.

Q9:   The authors need to fit the data first with the equations in the literature review section then can compare with the proposed model

Response: According to your comments, this part has been added to the revised manuscript. (Section 3 (2) and conclusion)

Q10: The authors should use another indicator to estimate the accuracy of the model like Root Mean square Error.

Response: In Section (3) of Section 3, the authors add the RMSE index to evaluate the accuracy of the model.

Q11: It is mentioned in the abstract section “The results of this study can provide a basis for long-term deformation evaluation of oil shale residue subgrade filling during actual road service.” Where this statement was achieved in the main manuscript?

Response: I'm sorry for the flawed abstract of the article. The summary has been rewritten following Q1.

Q12: A recommendation section should be added to highlight the most important outcomes of this study to the practitioners.

Response: A prediction model for the dynamic resilience modulus of oil shale residue modified soil is proposed, which couples the complex environmental factors and load factors of unsaturated subgrade soil in seasonally frozen areas.

 

 

 

In a word, thank you very much for your professional comment, which is very helpful to improve the quality of the article. I have learned a lot. Thank you again for your hard work.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

 Reviewer Comments:

The paper presents an interesting topic which is "Prediction Model of Dynamic Resilience Modulus of  Unsaturated Modified Subgrade Under Multi - factor   Combination". The reviewer has some concerns to improve the quality of the manuscript:

     1.          The abstract should be rewrite as it present nothing to the reflect the entire content of the manuscript.

     2.          The research objectives are not clear, also the research gap should be highlighted.

     3.          The authors need to clarify what is the advantage of using this prediction model compared to the other published models.

     4.          Please reword this sentence" Continuing the research of the research group, the mass mixing ratio of oil shale waste residue, fly ash and silty clay is 2:1:2. In general the writing language should be improved as I noted many miswriting.

     5.          To enhance the quality of this manuscript the authors should present the results of the conducted testing then they can use this measured data to validate the proposed equation.

     6.          How the authors developed the proposed model without any measurement of matric suction I noted in Figure 1 it presents the prediction of SWCC using Qian Zhai paramters. It is worth to mention that this (Figure 1) is the same as Gould et al., 2012 model. Please clarify and outline the write equations.

     7.          How the authors developed model based on one type of soil? It is noted no direct measurement of resilient modulus?

     8.          Please define in details what is meant by a new effective stress parameter and the coefficient  function.

     9.          The authors need to fit the data first with the equations in the literature review section then can compare with the proposed model.

  10.          The authors should use a another indicator to estimate the accuracy of the model like Root Mean square Error.

  11.          It is mentioned in the abstract section " The results of this study can provide a basis  for long-term deformation evaluation of oil shale residue subgrade filling  during actual road service. " Where this statement was achieved in the main manuscript?

 

  12.          A recommendation section should be added to highlight the most important outcomes of this study to the practitioners. 

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewer,

Thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript entitled “Prediction Model of Dynamic Resilient Modulus of Unsaturated Modified Subgrade Under Multi - factor Combination” (applsci-1884502) by Xiaohan Luan and Leilei Han for publication in Applied Sciences.

We appreciate your hard work of pointing out the important revisions needed in the paper. We have seriously taken these comments into account. What we have changed in response to the reviewers’ comments are given point by point in the following pages attached in this letter.

We hope that all these changes fulfill the requirements to make the manuscript acceptable for publication in Applied Sciences.

Looking forward to hearing from you soon.

Yours Sincerely,

Leilei Han

 

Response to the Reviewer #1’s comments:

We appreciate for your valuable suggestions. We have revised the manuscript according to the reviewer’s comments, and hope that the revised manuscript can be better than the original one. Thanks very much.

 

Q1: The abstract should be rewrite as it present nothing to the reflect the entire content of the manuscript.

Response: Thanks for your professional suggestion. In the revised draft, the summary has been rewritten in combination with your other comments.

Q2: The research objectives are not clear, also the research gap should be highlighted.

Response: Thanks for your valuable comments, the abstract and conclusions have been rewritten to clarify the objective and research gaps of the article. And other parts of the paper have also been sorted out and revised to make the subject of the article more clear.  

Q3: The authors need to clarify what is the advantage of using this prediction model compared to the other published models.

Response: The properties of modified soil are quite different from those of soil in nature. The prediction of the improved soil by the existing research model may have a large error. This model is coupled with the complex environmental factors of unsaturated soil in seasonal frozen region. And it is based on the SWCC of oil shale waste modified subgrade fill and the actual data of resilient modulus after freezing and thawing, which is tailored for this kind of modified soil. Compared with other models, this model has high accuracy in predicting MR of this kind of modified soil. The authors add to this discussion by adding a comparison of previous forecasting models in Section III.

Q4:   Please reword this sentence" Continuing the research of the research group, the mass mixing ratio of oil shale waste residue, fly ash and silty clay is 2:1:2. In general the writing language should be improved as I noted many miswriting.

Response: Sorry for these mistakes, the author has made changes in the manuscript.

Q5:   To enhance the quality of this manuscript the authors should present the results of the conducted testing then they can use this measured data to validate the proposed equation

Response: The following changes have been made in the revised manuscript:

1) Data points and fitting functions were marked in SWCC images (Figure.1).

2) Some data were added in the model verification section (table.3).

Q6: How the authors developed the proposed model without any measurement of matric suction I noted in Figure 1 it presents the prediction of SWCC using Qian Zhai paramters. It is worth to mention that this (Figure 1) is the same as Gould et al., 2012 model. Please clarify and outline the write equations.

Response: I am sorry that I did not express clearly enough in this part. I have made the following reply to your questions, and revised in the manuscript.

• The SWCC in Figure 1 is obtained by the author through the filter paper method experiment. However, since the experimental data of the filter paper method are discrete, this paper adopts the widely used Fredlund model (function (5), reference [10]) for fitting, to find the feature points of SWCC more conveniently. The method Qianzhai proposed in literature [22] is to obtain the eigenvalues of SWCC by calculating Fredlund fitting parameters. These eigenvalues have practical physical meaning, and they are usually found in SWCC using graphical drawing of auxiliary lines. Using the calculation method proposed by Qianzhai is more accurate than the graphical method.
• In order to avoid misunderstanding, the author made a small modification to Figure 1, and marked the fitting equation and measured data points on the original Figure 1. In addition, I adjusted the narrative order before and after Figure 1 and added some necessary narratives to make this part more clear.
• The SWCC tested in this study is only to discuss which eigenvalues should be applied to establish effective stress parameters to better express the contribution of soil element stress to matric suction, rather than to propose a new SWCC prediction model. The authors used the advanced eigenvalue calculation method of predecessors to calculate the eigenvalues of SWCC, and all the methods used are quoted in the paper.

Q7:   How the authors developed model based on one type of soil? It is noted no direct measurement of resilient modulus?

Response: The experimental results [30] cited in the section discussing freeze-thaw reduction coefficient are the previous research of our research group, which was participated by the author himself. All data used in Section 3 to verify the model are also directly measured through experiments. In the revised draft, the author added some charts (Figure 2, Table 3) and analysis to make this part of the exposition more complete.

Q8:   Please define in details what is meant by a new effective stress parameter and the coefficient function

Response: Detailed definitions have been added for all model parameters.

Q9:   The authors need to fit the data first with the equations in the literature review section then can compare with the proposed model

Response: According to your comments, this part has been added to the revised manuscript. (Section 3 (2) and conclusion)

Q10: The authors should use another indicator to estimate the accuracy of the model like Root Mean square Error.

Response: In Section (3) of Section 3, the authors add the RMSE index to evaluate the accuracy of the model.

Q11: It is mentioned in the abstract section “The results of this study can provide a basis for long-term deformation evaluation of oil shale residue subgrade filling during actual road service.” Where this statement was achieved in the main manuscript?

Response: I'm sorry for the flawed abstract of the article. The summary has been rewritten following Q1.

Q12: A recommendation section should be added to highlight the most important outcomes of this study to the practitioners.

Response: A prediction model for the dynamic resilience modulus of oil shale residue modified soil is proposed, which couples the complex environmental factors and load factors of unsaturated subgrade soil in seasonally frozen areas.

 

 

 

In a word, thank you very much for your professional comment, which is very helpful to improve the quality of the article. I have learned a lot. Thank you again for your hard work.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

None